the great historic blind alley known as Darwinism
Western science has largely been built through a series of increments and minor revolutions (I refer the reader to Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Every twist in the road leads us closer to the fundamental truth about the Universe. With physics we start with the geocentric and "desire-based" gravitational theories of Aristotle, which are subsequently codified by Ptolemy. Then Copernicus suggests something new that is refined by Galileo and Kepler, and finally codified by Newton. The science behind Newtonian physics is so precise it can put a man on the moon and bring him back, but even it is fatally flawed in a fundamental (though usually insignificant) way and Einstein makes the correction.
With Biology, though, we're seeing something strange happening. The ancients in most societies, seeing the miracle of life all around them, suggested that life could not have arisen on its own but must have had a designer. This was a logical assumption for them to make and one that is proving increasingly correct with each passing day. But in the West, scientists sought to propose a purely-naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and came up first with Lamarckian evolution (the inheritance of acquired traits) and then Darwinian evolution (a tautology that actually explains very little). For some reason, though, Biologists leaped on Darwinism as an explanation for Biological diversity and elaborated a whole science out of it, using Darwinism to explain all sorts of things from the drug resistance of bacteria to the zany lifeforms (now mostly extinct) found on isolated oceanic islands. In their zeal to make humans into just another animal, they proposed that humans evolved from apes, and then, once gene sequencing was invented, cited it as "evidence" that humans are as closely related to apes as red eyed and white eyed vireos in the genus Vireo.
Only now are we realizing, through the science of Intelligent Design, that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the diversity of lifeforms on this planet and cannot explain how the complex little machines that do things in our cells came to be. It turns out that the hunches of the ancients in "primitive" societies were right all along: all of us were designed and placed here like chess pieces on this planet.
How could western science have gone so badly astray? My guess is that in its zeal to completely abandon the supernatural as a causative explanation, scientists have managed to build a rotting edifice of wishful thinking. They WISH that there was no designer. They WISH that pure chemistry (coupled with the selective forces of the environment) could explain the diversity of biology on this planet. They WISH that similarities in chromosomal patterns and organ structure represented common origins. But they are wrong, and some day people will look back on this time and wonder how science could have advanced so far while allowing itself to be side-tracked into a blind alley.
One day our elementary biology texts will discuss the existence of a designer with the same matter-of-factness that they discuss the inheritance of blue eyes. Physicists and geologists will refine their sciences to account for a grand designer, bringing us closer to a grand unified theory of everything. Ignorance will be banished and, I think it's safe to say, faith will be strengthened. Perhaps America, the home of the Intelligent Design revolution, will regain its footing in the world after the Clinton-era slippage of our reputation. (A tear of joy actually just came to my eye. I really think this can happen if we keep furthering the science.)
In some ways, particularly given the rise of Darwinism, human societies were actually further ahead when they were living in caves and banging stones on each other's heads. At least back then they KNEW there was a designer and would have laughed had one suggested they bore any familial relationship to animals. Sure, they were all damned to hell because they were thousands of years from having a personal relationship to Jesus, but in their gut at least they knew they were special and knew that complex mechanisms required designers.
I'm very skeptical of the notion that humans EVER lived as the "stereotypical" caveman. So in one sense, I agree with you… ancient civilizations would probably surprise us with their technology, relative to the popular conception of that technology is. I'm certainly not saying they had wireless Internet or anything. I've seen some pretty convincing arguments to support the idea that the Antarctica was mapped, at least crudely (by today's standards) during a time when it was largely free of ice. That would have required some sort of clock device with which to measure longitude, and of course all of that would have required that those explorers believe that the Earth was a sphere. All of this, obviously, quite contrary to popular understanding.
But I think that when you grant that we once did "bang stones on each other's heads" you're really granting way too much. You might be buying into a large part of the evolutionary world-view.
On a theological note, and from a Biblical standpoint, ancient man would have had salvation through faith in Christ just as we do… their faith looked forward to a promised messiah, while our's looks back.
In all, I think the title of your post overstates things a bit, but it does have a thread of truth in it, I believe. Definitely an interesting topic.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
TroutMac,
You are right on the button on most issues, however on this I belive you are wrong. There ARE primitive cultures today who live much like the "stereotypical caveman", in that they have a ultra-low tech lifestyle, they make only privative tools (e.g. spears) from unmodified natural materials. There are tribes of such people who live today at the heart of the Amazon jungle.
So even if you believe in a young earth, we cannot doubt that primative cultures exist.
I think that Qunitilis is trying to point out that despite their ignorance of science and technology, these privative cultures might be more advanced in another sense because they are are still in touch with the spiritual aspects of life. What could be more stupid than a person is an expert in quantum physics, and at the same time denies the existence of God?
Helena
Helena:
Well, surely I should have defined what I meant by "stereotypical caveman." Obviously, to claim that primitive cultures never existed or don't exist would be foolish. What I mean is that I reject the idea that humans ever walked around carrying big wooden clubs and saying "Ugh," having just recently dropped their banana, so to speak. I would suggest that humans have always possessed at least as much intelligence as we do now… there may have been a time when they possessed MORE intelligence, even. But that's not to say they had higher technology or even anything CLOSE to our technology… but I do strongly suspect that if a paleoanthropologist were to jump into a time machine and travel back to, let's say, Noah's time (pre-flood) they would surprised at the technology that was available… that people wouldn't have been walking around with clubs saying nothing but "Ugh.". Obviously, I have no way to back that up, and obviously that scenario presupposes a young Earth and a Biblical account of early human history. I presume that you're not likely to object to that particular presupposition.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
This is a little off-topic, given that this site is not theological, but the Bible doesn't say much about the technology that existed before the flood. Indeed, when Noah was building his Ark, it seems God was dictating the technology to him pretty directly. Unlike the Greeks, those of us following Semitic religions do not believe that Man got his technology from divine intervention (except in special cases such as Noah's Ark). Instead we believe that man invented and improved his own technologies. Since there was no technology at all in that Garden of Eden, one has to presume that Adam (perhaps with a few helpful suggestions from Eve) invented all the basic human technologies himself. He probably made primitive shelters and made tools from stone and wood. But it's doubtful he knew how to smelt iron or fabricate Intel processors. There was no infrastructure for those technologies. Iron smelting is a non-obvious thing and most anthropologists (including creationist ones) believe iron working started the easy way, with found chunks of iron meteorites. After this rare resource was quickly depleted, someone at some point figured out how to get iron from iron ore - which to you and me looks like any other rock. My guess is that for many hundreds of years after creation, and perhaps extending beyond the flood, human society was very low-tech. No one knew about the arch, the bow and arrow, iron working, and perhaps not even sewing until each of those things were independently invented. The Bible makes for a very comprehensive guide to science and history, but it's a little spotty in places, particularly when it comes to what guy begat which technology. But reading between the lines, I'm certain Adam and Eve were pretty much cavemen, as were their descendants, for many generations.
We know that certain descendants of Noah, such as the native Tasmanians, were still living without any of the aforementioned technologies when first discovered by Europeans in the 1700s. It's hard to believe they would have known how to do these things and then just forgotten. It's also a little puzzling that their animist religious system was completely unlike traditions from the Middle East given that they directly descended from a guy who was told how to build an Ark by a very particular and very monotheistic God, but I'm sure creationist anthropologists are on the cusp of an explanation. I'll just keep hitting refresh on AnswersInGenesis until they tell us how it all went down.
This is certainly an interesting area of speculation. I think it's safe to say that Adam and Eve lived what we might today call an ultra-primitive lifestyle. That is to say they made no use of tools, built no shelter and wove no clothes. Since they did not need to hunt, we might call them foragers.
When Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit, clearly something changed. That is to say they suddenly acquired knowledge or wisdom. Let's suppose for a moment that Adam were instantly given knowledge of ship-building technology, is it likely he would have been able to use this information and pass it on?
Practically speaking I think not. When Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden he would not have had any ability to apply this knowledge. Even given the long life he lived, it would have been unlikely that he had access to the substances needed to build a large boat: Prepared timber, pitch, metals. Without any application, that knowledge would have died out.
I think any knowledge that mankind had would have been acquired by a normal process of learning over the years that elapsed since Genesis 1 and the Noahic flood.
Next, looking at the instructions that Noah recieved prior to the flood and the construction of the Ark. They are only very vague, lacking any of the detail that an expert ship-builder might want to consider when undertaking a project of this size. Furthermore, Noah's instructions do not seem to have included any guidance as to where all the created kinds of the world can be found.
I think what we can conclude from this was that prior to the flood Noah was already an expert ship-builder (probably the leader of a ship-building clan), and was also an expert zoologist, hence his knowledge of where to procure two of every species from as far apart as the Arctic, Antarctic and Equator.
Finally, a question often asked by foolish atheists is how on earth Noah was able to sustain so many mutually incompatible life-forms in such a small boat. We all know that a desert scorpion needs very different conditions to an Antarctic-dwelling Emperor penguin.
I've even heard it alleged that the technology of the era would not have been sufficient carrying-capacity to hold the number of species that live today. And furthermore, they allege that the ship-building technology of the day was not adequate for building a boat of that size.
These dissenters forget that the modern count of species is based on flawed neo-darwinist biology. Many sensible biologists have discovered a new science called "baraminology", which shows that there are far fewer "kinds" than previously suspected.
Furthermore, these materialist scientists have fallen into what I call a God-denial trap. They have assumed that everything that occurred on the ark complied with the laws of Physics as we currently know them.
Kazmer Ujarovsky from the Frontline Science institute offers an interesting theory that the proportions of the Ark, co-incide exactly with the dimensions needed to focus a temporo-spacial anomaly. Effectively, within the Ark, time would slow down to the point where the cargo was effectivly in a kind of suspended animation. The crew therefore only had to carry enough food to sustain themselves.
Of course, materialists deny that such an anomaly can exist, however Kazmer's logic is entirely consistent with the conservative principles of non-materialism and therefore cannot be disproved so easily as the materialists would wish.
People who dispute Noahic history have not yet disproven Kazmer's anomaly theory, and therefore I think they are being far to quick to dismiss this story as a nonsense folk-tale.
Helena
That's a fascinating idea, Helena!
One would think that Noah would be able to accomplish just about anything in building his Ark, since the directions supplied by God might have included all sorts of clever "hacks" allowing end-runs around the restrictions of conventional physics, chemistry, and biology. It would be sort of like being able to enter and exit the Matrix (as in, the global simulation depicted in the movie having that name). I can imagine (and this brings us back on topic) that a clever designer could include pressure points and worm-holes in the structure of the Universe allowing those who knew of their existence to bypass the normal laws of the universe. These would be similar to the Easter Eggs I mentioned in an earlier blog post, but they'd be UTILITARIAN as opposed to REVELATORY. (I can see that soon we're going to be needing a glossary of terms for our newly-emerging field of Metaphysical Designer Theory.) By building things having certain specific shapes and features that tap into these Utilitarian Easter Eggs (UEEs), someone receiving instructions from God could make space ships, time-traveling devices, teleporters, perpetual motion machines, and even (perhaps) fountains of youth. Even if the UEEs didn't exist at the beginning of such a project, an interactive designer, approving of some human's technological project, could intercede to create a UEE after the fact, sort of like Microsoft creating a new API (Application-Program Interface) allowing some new internet service to communicate with Internet Explorer. So someone building something in faith (like the crude airport built by a Polynesian cargo cult) might actually be able to access unimaginable power beneath the scrim.
What I find scary in all of this is the possibility that the Moral Fabric of the Universe might have similar UEEs embedded in it, allowing someone to kill, rape, get an abortion, watch pornography, take drugs, molest children, or steal without having to pay consequences in the afterlife. This might seem like an impossibility, but we already know the Lord works in mysterious ways: Jesus had to die for our sins, and someone had to kill Him, and those who killed Him were DOING THE LORD'S WORK. So perhaps Judas and the scourging Centurions are all in Heaven. The Lord also routinely destroys churches (even fundamentalist ones) using tornados. So we can't discount the possibility that a truly evil person might find a UEE allowing him to kill millions, live a thousand years, and then breeze on into the Kingdom of Heaven, perhaps without even having to die first.
That's a fascinating idea, Helena!
Sadly it was not my original idea; If I could think up stuff like that I would have my own research group dedicated to non-materialistic metaphysics. For the time being I am content to be a student. I've learnt a great deal from you, oleary, TroutMac and the other OE.com bloggers, so lets keep this interesting dialogue going right?
someone receiving instructions from God could make space ships, time-traveling devices, teleporters, perpetual motion machines, and even (perhaps) fountains of youth. Even if the UEEs didn't exist at the beginning of such a project, an interactive designer, approving of some human's technological project, could intercede to create a UEE after the fact, sort of like Microsoft creating a new API (Application-Program Interface) allowing some new internet service to communicate with Internet Explorer.
Quntillis, this is what Kazmer and I believe miracles essentially are. They are some kind of localized suspension or circumvention of the normal laws of physics. Do not be tricked into believing that these are rare happenings - they happen all the time, but often at a microscopic level. For example, consider the miracle of embryogenesis:
According to materialist science this process can be summed up as an egg and a sperm fusing to create a "Zygote". This of course misses the third and most important component of a baby human - the immortal soul, which fuses at exactly the same time. Since the soul is immaterial in it's nature - that is to say it is not matter or energy or something else, it cannot be explained by the normal laws of physics.
It therefore stands to reason that this is a miraculous process, and that at the foci of this miracle we must find a UUE. It's possible that this phenomena persists through the entire life of a human being, otherwise how else could a soul function without constant intervention from an entity that is able to create non-materialistic phenomena.
Wishful thinking
My guess is that in its zeal to completely abandon the supernatural as a causative explanation, scientists have managed to build a rotting edifice of wishful thinking. They WISH that there was no designer. They WISH that pure chemistry (coupled with the selective forces of the environment) could explain the diversity of biology on this planet. They WISH that similarities in chromosomal patterns and organ structure represented common origins.
The amazing thing about non-materialistic science is that it has the potential to simply explain any observable natural phenomena. Non-materialistic science is therefore one of mankind's greatest achievements because it is able to answer any question and solve any riddle. Why then would people who claim to want to know the truth be so opposed to this development?
I just do not know - it makes no sense to me.